Town Bayana, Tehsil Bayan, District Bharatpur. (Raj) vs Of Near New Vegitable Mandi, Town Bayana, Tehsil

Judgment

1. Mohan Lal S/o Gopaliram, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Near New Vegitable Mandi, Town Bayana, Tehsil [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (2 of 7) [CR-235/2022] Bayana, District Bharatpur. (Raj)

Narendra Kumar @ Munna S/o Late Mishri Lal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Agrasen Nagar, Town Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. (Raj)

3. Nagar Palika Bayana, Through Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta with Mr. Naman Pareek Mr. Dinesh Chand Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 02/04/2025 Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners- defendants aggrieved from order dated 01.10.2022 in civil suit No. 84/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiffs have filed a civil suit arraying Nagar Palika as a party but before instituting a civil suit, a notice under Section 304 of Municipality Act, 2009 was not served upon respondent No.3. He further submitted that without serving a notice, to Nagar Palika a civil suit is not maintainable and barred by law. He also referred the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and submitted that such a suit is liable to be dismissed at very threshold.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs and submitted that municipality has not raised any objection before the Trial Court about service of notice [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (3 of 7) [CR-235/2022] and the private defendants have no right to object about notice before institution of suit. He further relied upon judgment in case of Municipal Council, Barmer Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018 1 WLN 387 and Mohan Lal Vs. Jagdish Prasad Soni 2020(1) WLC (Raj.) 395.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs).

5. The brief facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that Plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) have filed a civil suit against present petitioners and municipality, Bayana for permanent injunction raising a dispute about a property. After receipt of notice, an application under Order VII Rule 11 is filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 13 (petitioners herein) and same was dismissed by the Trial Court.

6. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (4 of 7) [CR-235/2022] (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

7. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code.

8. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137, and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (5 of 7) [CR-235/2022] plaint does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation.

9. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 it was held that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

11. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (6 of 7) [CR-235/2022] Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint, clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

13. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected, if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

14. Section 304 of Rajasthan Municipality Act provides that no suit shall be instituted against a municipality or any other person including officers and office bearers in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in official capacity without serving a notice of two months. Section 304(3) of Municipal Act further provides that nothing in sub-Section (1) shall be construed to apply to a suit wherein the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by giving of the notice or the postponement of the commencement of the suit or proceeding.

15. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Municipal Council, Barmer Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) while [2025:RJ-JP:16560] (7 of 7) [CR-235/2022] considering the provision of Section 304(3) has observed that the service of notice upon Municipal Board does not apply to a suit wherein the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by giving of notice. This judgment was further relied by another Co-ordinate Bench in case of Mohan Lal Vs. Jagdish Prasad Soni (supra).

16. Having considered aforesaid, the nature of suit filed to seek injunction, therefore, the bar as pleaded by the petitioners does not apply in the instant case. Moreover, the petitioners are not a Municipal Board rather they are private individuals and primary relief claimed is against the petitioners, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.

17. In view of aforesaid, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. MONU /123-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J